Desilets v. Wal-Mart

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: November 26, 1997
• Docket: CV-95-534-SD
• Status: Published

Opinion

Desilets v. Wal-Mart CV-95-534-SD 11/26/97 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

James Desilets; Ricky Ordwav; John Pederson; Matthew Young

v. Civil No. 95-534-SD

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc,

O R D E R

While employed at relevant times by the defendant Wal-Mart

Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart), the four plaintiffs in this action

discovered that their employer had secreted voice-activated tape

recorders in the workplace. Accordingly, they brought suit for

damages pursuant to the federal, 18 U.S.C. § 2520, and state. New

Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) 570-A, wiretap laws.

In response to special verdict guestions, the jury awarded

each of the plaintiffs the sum of $10,000 for violation of the

"intentional interception" provisions of the federal law, and

awarded each plaintiff $10,000 for violations of the "intentional

use" provisions of the same statute. The jury also awarded each

plaintiff the sum of $1,000 for violation of the "willful

interception provision of the state wiretap law, and awarded each plaintiff the sum of $1,000 for violation of the "willful use"

provision of said statute.* Otherwise stated, each plaintiff was

awarded a total of $22,000 for violations of the statutes upon

which they based their claims.

However, it is well-established law that a plaintiff cannot

claim multiple recoveries for the same loss, even though

different theories of liability are alleged in the complaint.

Phillips v. Verax Corp., 138 N.H. 240, 248, 637 A.2d 906, 912

(1994); LaBarre v. Shepard, 84 F.3d 496, 501-02 (1st Cir. 1996).

See also Borden v. Paul Revere Life Ins., 935 F.2d 370, 383-84

(1st Cir. 1991). It follows that each plaintiff is entitled only

to here recover the greater of the jury awards; that is, $10,000

each for a violation of the "intentional interception" provision

of the federal law and $10,000 each for violation of the

"intentional use" provision of that statute.

‘Plaintiff Desilets also advanced a claim for lost wages, but the court granted a judgment as a matter of law on this claim in the course of trial. Rule 50(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. The jury also returned verdicts for the defendant on each claim of the plaintiffs which sought recovery of punitive damages.

2 The clerk is directed to enter judgment in accordance with

the terms of this order.

SO ORDERED.

Shane Devine, Senior Judge United States District Court November 26, 1997 cc: E. Tupper Kinder, Esg. Charles L. Powell, Esg. Claude T. Buttrey, Esg.